Just For Fun

After tomorrow night's special House election results in the sixth congressional district in Georgia ("GA-6") are known, there will be a bumper crop of political commentary attempting to explain "what it all means going forward." No matter what the outcome, dire consequences will be predicted for one side of the aisle or the other. Sweeping conclusions will be drawn and confident predictions made by pundits far and wide. In the end the GA-6 election may deserve all of this attention, but then again there's an equal chance that it may not. But deserved or not, there will be real political consequences in the medium-term, as one party or the other may radically shift its campaign strategy for the 2018 midterms based on tomorrow night's results. So it will wind up being a consequential election, even if all of the fulminating about "what it all means" turns out to be incorrect.

There are four possible outcomes worth examining. Either Democrat Jon Ossoff wins or Republican Karen Handel wins. In either case, they could win by a razor-thin margin in a very close race, or they could win a substantial and decisive victory. Let's examine all four of these, with the possible consequences for the two parties as they contemplate 2018 strategies. We'll take these in the order of "bad to good," for the Democrats.

Karen Handel wins big

If the Republican candidate wins a decisive victory (which I'm defining as five points or better), this will cause some weeping and wailing and rending of garments within the Democratic Party. Conversely, it will act to calm and soothe worried Republicans.

In any normal year with any normal president (of either party), this district is pretty reliably Republican. So a big Republican win, even in a special election, would normally barely be newsworthy. But this is not a normal year, and this is anything but a normal election. It is the most expensive House race in all U.S. history, and might even place in the top ten list of most expensive Senate races of all time. That's pretty extraordinary, and may not even take into account the tens of millions in dark money flowing in to the race.

Looking at the district's House voting record, it's hard to see how any Democrat would even have a prayer of winning here. Just last November, Tom Price won the district with a whopping 23-point margin of victory. But the reason the district is vulnerable is that, demographically, it looks more like a Democratic district than a Republican one. It is comprised mainly of wealthy suburbs of Atlanta, and it falls into the top ten House districts in the country when measured by percentage of residents with college degrees. The other nine such districts are all represented by Democrats. On top of this, Donald Trump won the district by less than two percent. So it's not rabidly pro-Trump, and the special election has been portrayed as a referendum on how Trump's been doing so far, and (specifically) on the House healthcare bill that Trump has celebrated.

The polls so far have shown a very tight race, or even a slight Democratic advantage. So if Handel manages a comfortable victory, it will only reinforce the idea that "the polls always get it wrong," among Republicans. Now, special election polling is usually pretty sparse and often highly questionable, but the election of Donald Trump was so widely missed by pollsters that the reputation of public polling is already at a pretty dismal level. If Handel wins big, this will only add to this perception.

What this means for 2018 is that Republicans will feel free to largely ignore any polling they don't like, and double down on supporting Trump (at least, for now). The Trump magic will be seen to still be working, and it probably won't prompt any changes in overall Republican strategy for the midterms. Republicans in swing districts will likely not break strongly away from Trump in any meaningful way (at least, unless his current scandals get a lot worse).

Even though this is a normally-Republican district, if Handel wins decisively it will come as a crushing blow to Democrats. Of the handful of special elections this cycle, this race was seen as the most winnable by Democrats (hence the record amounts of spending here). Jon Ossoff is a pretty moderate guy, as Democrats go, and he was supposed to be appealing enough to entice Republican and independent voters disgruntled or disaffected with Trump to pull the level for a Democrat. If that doesn't happen, Democratic chances of retaking the House in 2018 will be seen as much more remote.

In one way, it might actually be healthy for Democrats if Ossoff does lose big tomorrow night, because it might finally spur them to formally examine what is going so wrong for them at the ballot box. After the Republicans lost big in the 2012 elections, they immediately produced a "post-mortem" or "autopsy" report afterwards, in an attempt to identify what Republicans were doing wrong. Now, it must be admitted that (1) no Republicans actually took any of the advice in the autopsy, but also (2) it didn't really matter, because they continued to win anyway. Even so, the Democrats have not had a similar self-examination after the 2016 disaster. First the party had to choose a new leader, but it's been months since Tom Perez got elected chair of the Democratic National Committee, and still we have had no real attempt to bridge the differences which still fester in the party between the supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. If there is no attempt even made to reunify the party behind an agenda that appeals to both sides of this schism, then Democrats may enter the 2018 cycle in a pretty disorganized fashion -- which could hurt their chances. So if an Ossoff loss prompts a rededication to strong party principles, it could eventually wind up doing some good for the party overall.

Karen Handel squeaks by

If Handel wins by a point or two, then it may leave the current status quo in both parties largely intact. Republicans will still be worried that the electorate is shifting against them (and against Trump), since this district should have been an easy win for them (once again: just last November a Republican won here by a 23-point margin). But there will be a certain amount of relief that Democrats still haven't managed to flip a single seat in the special elections this year. Republicans in swing districts will still face the choice of how closely they want to embrace Donald Trump and his agenda.

On the Democratic side, they will loudly attempt to proclaim a moral victory. If Handel wins by (say) three points, then the district will have shifted an astonishing 20 points towards Democrats since November. That is statistically significant, which Democrats will attempt to point out as forcefully as they can manage. But a moral victory is still a loss, when it comes time to add up who gets the speaker's gavel.

If the loss is maddeningly close, it will likely not prompt any grand overall self-examination by the Democratic Party, though. A few percentage points can be explained away by any number of reasons (valid or not), which won't spur much in the way of critical analysis of the party's platform or the candidate selection process.

So a close win for the GOP is quite likely not to change much of anything on either side of the aisle, when it comes to their overall 2018 midterm strategies.

Jon Ossoff squeaks by

This win will be lauded to the skies by Democrats, no matter how close. That is pretty much a given. The media may also see this as a major bellwether for the midterm cycle. Democrats have already had two moral victories (read: close losses) in special House elections so far this year, in Kansas and Montana. They are salivating for an actual win at this point, so if Ossoff carries the day it's not going to matter much to Democrats how big he won.

This will give rise to a lot of confidence within the Democratic Party, whether deserved or not. Winning one House seat isn't going to change much of anything on Capitol Hill for the next two years, but it will indeed give the Democrats a lot of wind at their back entering the midterm season. Fundraising will be much easier. The energy of the "Resist!" movement will continue to grow. Democrats will begin speaking openly of the chances of retaking the House for Trump's final two years in office. Nancy Pelosi will begin eyeing that gavel that Paul Ryan holds.

Republicans will become even more alarmed about their 2018 chances if Ossoff does win. This may be the impetus for a lot of GOP House members in swing districts to begin to break (in big ways and small) from Trump. If a "wave" election is coming, the only way for Republicans in swing districts to survive may be to start challenging the president. Perhaps the congressional investigations into Trump will be the first place this shows up. But one way or another, losing Newt Gingrich's old congressional district is going to send a shockwave through the Republican Party. Their overall 2018 strategy may start to resemble a fearful crouch, in fact.

A word of caution, however, for Democrats reading this. If Ossoff does manage to squeak out a win tomorrow night, it may not be as significant as the entire punditocracy is going to make it out to be. Special elections rarely accurately portend the next election cycle's results, no matter who wins them. So even if Democrats get enthused and Republicans get extremely worried, next November is a long way away. And as we've already seen, under Trump, things move pretty fast. November is almost seventeen months away. Trump hasn't even been president for five full months yet. So literally anything could happen between now and next year's midterms. Retaking the House is going to be a heavy lift for the Democrats in any case (due mostly to massive gerrymandering in the GOP's favor), so one election in Georgia doesn't guarantee anything.

Jon Ossoff wins big

One recent poll in Georgia put Jon Ossoff up by seven points. If this turns out to be an accurate read of the electorate, then Ossoff could win a decisive victory tomorrow night. This would usher in monumental changes in both parties' 2018 strategies, and just might live up to all the hype (from the pundits and the media) it will surely give birth to.

The best-case scenario for Democrats is to both see Ossoff win big in Georgia and to also pick up a surprise victory in the South Carolina special House election which will also be happening tomorrow night. If Democrats flip both GA-6 and SC-5 on the same night, the Republican Party is going to absolutely freak out. Sheer panic will reign. The South Carolina seat has always been seen as much less winnable for Democrats by both the party apparatus and the media (and, even now, must still be seen as a longshot). So a surprise win here is going to shift the storyline considerably.

If Democrats pick up both seats, the conventional wisdom in Washington is going to become: "A Democratic wave is coming!" The only real argument will be how massive this tsunami is going to turn out to be.

This will obviously send confidence levels in the Democratic Party through the roof. "We're on a winning streak, let's take back the House!" will become their rallying cry. The prospect of shutting down Trump's agenda cold in the House will be a tantalizing goal for Democrats everywhere. Their election strategy will probably become much more anti-Trump as a direct result.

Republicans are going to panic if they lose two races tomorrow night. Even if they only lose in Georgia, they're still going to get extremely nervous. If the electorate is moving away from Trump in a big way, then there's not much wiggle room for Republican candidates. Some will be able to choose to continue aligning themselves closely with Trump, but only the ones in districts that are overwhelmingly safe for Republicans. In swing districts the panic will be most acute, but Ossoff's win (and the close finishes in Kansas and Montana) is going to mean a lot of Republicans in districts that lean Republican (without being overwhelmingly safe) are now going to have to consider themselves at risk in 2018.

This will open up the possible map for Democrats. It will expand the number of districts that both parties consider competitive next year. For Democrats, this will mean a full-steam-ahead approach, but for Republicans it's going to mean chaos within the party. Some Republicans will peel slightly away from Trump, but some may break from Trump entirely in a desperate bid to avoid getting drowned in the building Democratic wave. This will make it almost impossible for the party to run a coherent national campaign next year, because so many Republican candidates will be running on: "I'm not a party hack, I know when to stand up to Donald Trump!"

Conclusion

As you can see, in only one case does tomorrow night not matter much to both parties' campaign plans for the 2018 midterms. In the other three cases, major adjustments in strategy will likely take place. This is why tomorrow night's results are most likely to be consequential far beyond the borders of GA-6.

Whether they turn out to live up to the hype won't be known until after the 2018 midterms actually take place, however. It is always the nature of special House elections that they cannot always be taken as predictive. Local races are -- even with tens of millions of dollars injected -- surprisingly local, at times. One candidate or the other might just not have resonated with the voters. Negative campaigning sometimes works, and sometimes it backfires badly. Local issues that have no meaning in any other House race in the country might wind up being the biggest motivating factor.

So even if Democrats pick up two seats tomorrow night, their predicted wave might never actually materialize in 2018. Again, there is a lot of time between then and now, and anything could happen, good or bad. The only thing that is almost certain is that whatever the pundits predict will be "the pivotal issue in 2018" will turn out to have been woefully shortsighted.

Of course, that works both ways. If Republicans continue their sweep of special election districts that they previously held (in other words, denying Democrats any pickups), this also might give rise to a false sense of security among them. They'll tell themselves that Trump is not dragging their party down and that their chances are great to maintain their House majority. But the Democratic wave might be building out there anyway.

No matter which side wins tomorrow, the danger for them politically can be summed up in one word: overconfidence. Reading too much into a string of special elections doesn't always turn out as expected.

In one way, it might actually be healthy for Democrats if Ossoff does lose big tomorrow night, because it might finally spur them to formally examine what is going so wrong for them at the ballot box.

I have to call ya on this one, CW...

If someone like Donald Trump beats someone like NOT-45 and *THAT* doesn't spur the Democrats to take a good long look in the mirror??

NOTHING will...

If Democrats pick up both seats, the conventional wisdom in Washington is going to become: "A Democratic wave is coming!" The only real argument will be how massive this tsunami is going to turn out to be.

Which was, ironically enough, the same "conventional wisdom" around here during the Election of 16.. :D

No matter which side wins tomorrow, the danger for them politically can be summed up in one word: overconfidence. Reading too much into a string of special elections doesn't always turn out as expected.

Yes, there will be consequences.
No matter the result it will provide a distraction to avoid paying attention to the real problems with our political system.
There will be endless analysis of the results and predictions based on that while ignoring the absurdity of the top two primary system in Georgia and elsewhere. The establishment Dems and the media ilk that support them will use either winning or losing as an excuse to stick with the Big Money Democratic establishment rather than embrace real change that will actually help people.
While I admit that I just skimmed through the article before commenting, reading it wasn't really necessary because I've read it all before and will most likely be able to read it many other times in many other forms by many other people.
And it will all be the same distraction bullshit that serves to avoid discussing real problems and possible ways to actually solve rather than exploit those problems.

Don [8] While I admit that I just skimmed through the article before commenting...

Ah, the Trump-McConnell technique. Jeez! It wasn't even that long an article. But then again, all you wanted to do was make the same old argument:

The establishment Dems and the media ilk that support them will use either winning or losing as an excuse to stick with the Big Money Democratic establishment

Weell duh. If you'd've read the article you'd have caught this sentence:

"It is the most expensive House race in all U.S. history, and might even place in the top ten list of most expensive Senate races of all time. That's pretty extraordinary, and may not even take into account the tens of millions in dark money flowing in to the race."

So maybe unilateral financial disarmament isn't the best idea for Dems at this particular time, unless we just want to give up contesting elections altogether.

To get big money out, you need to find a way that BOTH sides will do it, and not cheat. When you come up with a way to do that, you'll have something everyone wants to talk about.

"They'll tell themselves that Trump is not dragging their party down and that their chances are great to maintain their House majority."

I predict they'll themselves this anyway, and blame any losses on 'outside money', e.g., George Soros, etc.

Democrats, to be fair, will do the same if they lose, so the game will continue to be played as-is until minds are changed. I don't see any indication of minds being changed by any of the rhetoric from the left or right.

I think it was just yesterday that Al, for instance, called Ossoff a 'corporatist' democrat. But that's a bullshit argument: compared to who? The Republican? Hardly. Until the left stops sitting out elections (while they wait for ideal candidates to come along) the MOST corporatist candidates will continue to win, guaranteed.

The question isn't one of legality, it's one of morality. Some folks confuse the two. You can't legislate morality, and you can't dictate it: that has to come from the people themselves.

So take an extreme example: if Washington decided to name themselves the "Ni**ers", that wouldn't be illegal (apparently), but would they be able to get any players to play, and any crowds to show up for games?

When Native Americans can get us to that point, where the term "Redskin" has that same distasteful
"uck" factor, then the re-naming will begin.

Personally, for me, it's already yukky, but for my brother, a sports fan, it isn't. So we have some ways to go...

I would say that, as "unfair" as it is, the Native Americans are a conquered people..

On the other hand, technically, they Native Americans have their own "nations" and, as such, they are free to impose whatever "morality" they wish within the confines of their nations...

How do you square those two thoughts?

While my knowledge of aboriginal rights as recognized by the US government is not nearly as extensive as my understanding of the same here in Canada, I would have to question your general assessment that First Nations are conquered peoples and your implication that native Americans are one people when there are many different nations and peoples.

That is certainly not the case in Canada where First Nations and the Canadian government entered into treaties over land and other related issues. In fact, some First Nations, particularly in British Columbia never treated with or lost anything to any non-aboriginal governments.

In any event, my query to you was really focused on how we treat each other, generally speaking, and on the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments and peoples, in particular. Specifically, we should be working towards improving relationships by ensuring that our interactions are based on equality and mutual respect, first and foremost.

The Native Americans are a conquered people and, as such, they have to follow the rules of the victors..

The victors have allowed the Native Americans to create their own nations and make their own laws and morality.. But ONLY within the confines of their own nation..

Once they leave the confines of their own nation, they have to follow the laws and morality of the nation they are visiting..

It's really the same for ALL peoples.. You follow the laws and morality of your country, but if you go to another country, you follow the laws and morality of THAT country..

In any event, my query to you was really focused on how we treat each other, generally speaking, and on the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments and peoples, in particular. Specifically, we should be working towards improving relationships by ensuring that our interactions are based on equality and mutual respect, first and foremost.

And yet, the Dumbocrats are ALL about...legalizing only THEIR version of "morality" and criminalizing anything THEY find immoral..

Can you give an example, because I can give lots of examples of the opposite: the Hayes Code, porn laws in general, the drug war, laws restricting nudity and obscenity, co-habitation laws, even the recent 'bathroom law' in North (or South?) Carolina. I could go on..

And what makes HIM wrong and YOU right? Your skewed idea of "morality"..

We have a whole class of professional whiners, and the willingness to listen to them and then buy adult diapers spans all parties. America is becoming a nation of namby-pambies.

Everybody could do with a thicker skin. Don't get me wrong, there are uncivilized labels out there, but since poll after poll shows that the Native American community isn't particularly concerned with the Washington Redskins name it seems pointless to pursue this particular issue. If you want to help that particular community, find something that they really care about and try to make a difference.

Balthasar (12)-
Thank you for discussing the real issue instead of the distraction.
Unfortunately, you have answered my same old argument with your same old argument.
And I am not proposing unilateral disarmament and have explained that the One Demand approach can be used on all parties by all citizens.
20% of the 125 million citizens investing 100 dollars in contributions to small contribution candidates would total 2.5 billion dollars. Divided by 500 (rounded up from about 470 congressional and senate races in 2018) would average 5 million dollars per election. And this a bare minimum as many of these citizens could make more than 100 dollars in contributions to more than one candidate.
Hardly disarmament.
And the Big Money strategy only works when there are no other options. So the small contribution candidates don't have to match the Big Money candidates, they only have to have enough money and support to compete.
And once again- ALL citizens can use this to influence ALL parties and candidates.
And it also provides the only protection that will work to stop candidates from cheating- voting against them in the voting booth.
Your solution of continuing to vote for the Big Money Democratic candidates because they promise to fix the problem at some point in the future has not and will not work.
I will continue to comment whether or not I read the whole article, but I would suggest that you check your facts before claiming that I want to disarm the Democrats and that I do no have an approach that can be effective against both subdivisions of the Big Money Corporate Party when I have clearly demonstrated just the opposite of your claim.
For me standing up for I want is preferable to your approach of giving up without even trying.

snyder already created a precedent by forming the "Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation."
to me that's an acknowledgment on his part that he does owe the native community for his use and licensing of images that depict various first nations.

We have a whole class of professional whiners, and the willingness to listen to them and then buy adult diapers spans all parties. America is becoming a nation of namby-pambies.

Won't catch me arguing with ya.. :D

I have been making that case for over a decade here... :D

Everybody could do with a thicker skin. Don't get me wrong, there are uncivilized labels out there, but since poll after poll shows that the Native American community isn't particularly concerned with the Washington Redskins name it seems pointless to pursue this particular issue. If you want to help that particular community, find something that they really care about and try to make a difference.

"Billy. I love you. I have just fallen in love with you."
-Eddie Murphy, BEVERLY HILLS COP

snyder already created a precedent by forming the "Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation."
to me that's an acknowledgment on his part that he does owe the native community for his use and licensing of images that depict various first nations.

Or, more likely, a form of jury tampering, in case it ever got to trial...

RJ Reynolds did a lot of that during the smoking lawsuits... Every time I saw one of those commercials, I would say aloud.. "Jury Tampering"...

You rail against Republicans when they try to legislate morality (abortion) and cheer on Democrats when THEY try to legislate morality (LGBQTXYZABC laws)..

You do have a point, there.

To be clear, there are moral arguments that can be made on both sides of both of those issues, which, I suppose is why they're Issues in the first place.

Although, in my opinion, the Hobby Lobby decision was an awful decision that needs at some point to be overturned. It ignores the central premise of rulings made previously, when Civil Rights laws were being enacted, to wit: that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution dictates that "no law shall be enacted which restricts commerce between the states", i.e., when we walk into any public business, we have the right to be treated as any other customer.

Conservatives argue that the RFRE (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), originally designed to allow Native Americans the right to practice their peyote ceremonies, also allows Christian business to deny services to customers who don't subscribe to their religious beliefs, but I don't believe that one can rationally square that with Civil Rights laws that say the opposite.

Conservatives argue that the RFRE (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), originally designed to allow Native Americans the right to practice their peyote ceremonies, also allows Christian business to deny services to customers who don't subscribe to their religious beliefs, but I don't believe that one can rationally square that with Civil Rights laws that say the opposite.

It COULD, if respect was the operative word...

But amongst the Left, it is not..

Pick any Baker vs LGBQXYZABC activist case.....

LGBQXYZABC activist goes into a christian baker and says he/she wants a cake for a gay wedding..

Baker, respectfully, informs the activist that they are a christian business and, as such, cannot meet the activist's needs.

Activist says, "I respect your position and would not want to put you thru the discomfort of going against your beliefs. Could you recommend someone who might be able to help us?"

Baker is quite helpful and suggests other bakers that would not have a moral objection.

They hug, they kiss, they schmooze, they go home happy..

THAT is what respect is all about..

But the LGBQXYZABC activists are NOT about respect.. They are NOT about tolerance...

LGBQXYZABC activist goes into a christian baker and says he/she wants a cake for a gay wedding..

Okay, how does that square with the following..

Black man walks into a southern diner and says he'd like to have a hamburger.

Southerner says, respectfully, that his christian faith says that that a black man is a son of satan, so he can't serve him, and helpfully suggests that there is a 'blacks only' diner right down the street..

Black man walks into a southern diner and says he'd like to have a hamburger.

Southerner says, respectfully, that his christian faith says that that a black man is a son of satan, so he can't serve him, and helpfully suggests that there is a 'blacks only' diner right down the street..

If I were that black man, I wouldn't want to eat at such a bigoted and racist establishment, so I would thank the southener for his suggestion and leave...

Yes. Regardless. As soon as that owner hung out a shingle and invited the public in. That's the basis of the whole Civil Rights act of 1964.

Once you start making exceptions, say for religious sects that abhor redheads, eventually you get to folks that assert that blacks are evil, according to the Bible (because any damn idiot idea can be justified using religious texts). That is unacceptable, if you accept the American premise that "All men are created equal" or even just the mantra of 'free trade'.

Dumbocrats only respect their OWN beliefs and only tolerate those who SHARE those beliefs..

It isn't a 'democratic' belief, it's a principle upon which this country is founded. The statement "all men are created equal" implicitly requires that all men are treated with equal respect by the State. That respect also implicitly does NOT apply to bigots and religious zealots, which is why the constitution prohibits the establishment (i.e., endorsement) of any religious belief by the State.

That's why the Hobby Lobby ruling is so mind-bogglingly wrong. It turns the whole thing upside down and insists that we 'respect' the very bigotry that our country, by creed and by law, was founded to resist.

And to be non-partisan about it, the RFRE, which was proposed and passed by Democrats, was also a piece of shit law.

But that's not right, and that's not the law, thank goodness. You're ducking the central premise, again,(bolded this time so that you acknowledge it):

No, I am not ducking the central premise....

I am addressing the central premise which is, is it proper to legislate morality..

You started off by saying it WASN'T proper, but then I gave you plenty of examples of when it was and is being done and then you changed and now say it IS proper...

In short, I have proven that it's proper to legislation morality, as long as it's YOUR morality that is being legislated into being..

I am not picking on you, specifically.. Right wingers are the same way.. They abhor legislating morality until it's time to address the issue of abortion.. Then they have NO PROBLEM in legislating morality...

Me?? I am the epitome of the live and let live philosophy... I don't feel the need to impose my beliefs on anyone...

It isn't a 'democratic' belief, it's a principle upon which this country is founded. The statement "all men are created equal" implicitly requires that all men are treated with equal respect by the State.

If we were talking about State run businesses you would have a valid point... But we are talking about individuals who have the right to worship as they see fit and the right to run their businesses according to their beliefs...

Imagine the outcry if the best Democrat Operative in the country was forced by the courts to use his/her expertise to elect Republicans...

That's why the Hobby Lobby ruling is so mind-bogglingly wrong. It turns the whole thing upside down and insists that we 'respect' the very bigotry that our country, by creed and by law, was founded to resist.

Exactly...

You have to RESPECT people's beliefs... Even if that belief manifests as bigotry..

Because, if you DON'T respect that person's beliefs and tolerate that person's right to be a bigot, that makes you a disrespectful and intolerant bigot..

If we were talking about State run businesses you would have a valid point... But we are talking about individuals who have the right to worship as they see fit and the right to run their businesses according to their beliefs..

Apples and Oranges. The right to worship as one sees fit is indeed protected. The right to discriminate is not. The State's interest (again) is to prohibit discrimination. The Commerce Clause and Civil Rights Act are its tools.

And by the way, the right to cater only to a select clientele has always been legally recognized, as long as that is made clear - they could always re-name themselves the "Straight Christians Bakery" and be perfectly fine. That's how broad the law actually is on this.

Ironically, it was businesses themselves that finally encouraged Pence, for instance, to repeal his own anti-gay legislation in Indiana. Turns out that trans-national businesses have a vested interest in all this, too.

Remember when Ford canceled the plans to build their next small car in Mexico and announced that they were investing in electric car production in the U.S. instead and 45 and his minions got all giddy.

Turns out Ford were playing 45. They just announced that the plant that was going to be built in Mexico is now going to be built in China - saving $500M on construction and another $500M on ongoing costs (labor). Ford were proabably always going to take the $1B savings as they stated recently:

“We’ve done a lot of research and consumers care a lot more about the quality and the value than they do about the sourcing location,” Joe Hinrichs, Ford’s president of global operations, said in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. “iPhones are produced in China, for example, and people don’t really talk about it.”

and

Ford Motor Co. is canceling controversial plans to build the Focus small car in Mexico, saving $1 billion by ending North American production entirely and importing the model mostly from China after next year.

The U.S. automaker will start making the next-generation Focus in China from the second half of 2019, a year after output ends at one of its plants in Michigan. Ford will trim about $500 million in costs by shifting production to China, adding to the $500 million already saved from canceling construction of a small-car factory in Mexico earlier this year.

And by the way, the right to cater only to a select clientele has always been legally recognized, as long as that is made clear - they could always re-name themselves the "Straight Christians Bakery" and be perfectly fine.

Until angry LGBTQRSTUV activists burned down their store.. :^/

But honestly, I did not know that the right to discriminate was perfectly legal and acceptable as long as it was made clear up front..

So, if the christian bakers would have had a "ten commandments" of what the believed and who they would serve posted publicly in the store, they wouldn't have had any problems???

But honestly, I did not know that the right to discriminate was perfectly legal and acceptable as long as it was made clear up front..

Sure - you can have a "Whites Only" bakery if you want - but let me know so I can avoid it.

Maybe that is what we need. In NY the restaurants display their hygiene grade in the windows - perhaps we can add another mandatory poster that displays the people who are welcome in the establishment or place of worship.

And by the way, the right to cater only to a select clientele has always been legally recognized, as long as that is made clear - they could always re-name themselves the "Straight Christians Bakery" and be perfectly fine. That's how broad the law actually is on this.

it's actually a little more complicated than this. if it's a public business as opposed to a private club then there are zoning issues. the "straight white male christian bakery" might be allowed to limit what it bakes or who it hires based on the company mission, but it may not be allowed to refuse to sell a straight white male christian cake to a gay black female muslim.

This is my first comment on this blog, though it was recommended to me years ago by my brother. I have followed intermittently because Chris' analyses are generally insightful and most of the commenters have given me ideas to ponder.

The most off-putting aspects concern a tendency to wander off-topic to rehash Lib vs.Conservative talking points not germaine to the discussion introduced. For this reason, I skip most of the comments by Michale, as I have heard/seen them time and again on Fox News and Breitbart, as well as from friends and classmates. I once agreed reflexively with many of them, but real-life experience and self-education have changed my views considerably. When the discussion devolves into well-traveled but non-productive territory, the value of the thread disappears.

My suggestion to commenters is to remain on topic. It is occasionally amusing but not helpful to go from looking at, e.g., the ramifications of possible GA 6 results to an argument about First Nation rights and "religious (in)tolerance". I may hop in now and again if I see more informative discourse than "gotcha" bickering.

Just checked on results...found nothing yet.

Interesting that the paragraph structure I used is not coming through in the preview. As a total technophobe, I would appreciate suggestions on how to separate paragraphs.

Okay, here's what happened. I was reading until I got down to comment 59, and I had decided I just couldn't let it go any longer. So I cut a quote to clipboard, and discovered I wasn't logged in. After I did, I wasn't on the thread any more. I clicked on one - the wrong one- and mouse-wheeled right down to the posting box

The comment was previewed, "Submit Comment" was clicked, and I noticed the CW post just prior to it was June 8th.

Sometimes I'm not a total idiot, so I checked the calendar, and then copied the permalink to the clipboard. Alas, sometimes I am a total idiot, and used the clipboard again in writing this comment before I pasted the permalink.

So it's as gone as yesterday's viral cat video. It was about why I do not have to respect bullshit, why even Robert Bork did not have any respect for bigotry, and why he was ultimately borked.

CW, if you have the tools to locate it and decide to bother with the task of realigning it with this thread, that would be great.

First off, welcome to the site! Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments instantly. Just don't post more than one link per comment, as multilink comments are also automatically held for moderation to cut down on comment spam.

Good point about keeping on topic, have to say. It seems after about the first couple dozen comments, the whole thread veers off from the subject I wrote about.

As for "Preview Comment", that is entirely my fault and I apologize. Users begged me to add a preview, but it was beyond my programming abilities to make it work the way it should. The paragraph breaks do not show up, and I really should just get rid of the button altogether since it really doesn't work well at all.

So it's not just you, in other words.

As for everyone else, I will be answering all these comments shortly, as I watch tonight's election returns come in, but I will be commenting on those returns on today's article:

At the distinct risk of offending our newest anonymous commenter by veering way off topic, I'd like to welcome him/her/it to the site.

Btw, veering off topic is the least of this site's troubles.

Or, is it that there is just an aversion to recognizing the rights of the original inhabitants of this continent, Aloysius. Because, you should know that there are few topics discussed here that don't have at least an indirect impact upon those rights, whether or not you choose to see it as pertinent.

No. I don't. I have to respect the rights of people to profess their beliefs.

Fair enough.. I accept your qualification...

If it is bigotry, there are boundaries beyond those which will personally constrain how a bigot acts out.

Agreed...

Nonetheless, he had a good life that he deserved from his scholarship and public service. He also enjoyed meaningful support from some of the many people who, until this day, believe that he had been, well, borked. I obviously don't agree with it, but I can respect that belief.

And THAT's what is important. Respecting someone, even if you don't agree with them.. Respecting their rights to be a bigot if they so choose... Respecting their rights to be apprehensive or concerned about gay marriage...

This country has gotten away from that... Now, if you don't toe the Party line, you are a criminal, an arsonist, a terrorist and you deserve to be gunned down in cold blood..

What would have happened if a Trump supporter had shot a Democratic congressman and other Democratic Washington officials?

The answer is obvious.

The New York Times, the rest of the left-wing media and the Democratic Party would have made the shootings the dominant issue in American life. It is not possible to understand the left -- and, therefore, the media and the current state of American life -- without understanding how the left uses and relies on hysteria. Hysteria is to the left as oxygen is to biological life.

From the moment Donald Trump was elected president, America has been drowning in left-wing hysteria, all fomented by the media and the Democratic Party.

Excellent analysis of the Georgia 6th District House race. Now that the GOP candidate has more recorded votes a post-mortem is in order. Here is why the post-mortem should have a two-pronged analysis, which includes (1) a veracity audit and (2) a political evaluation.

VERACITY: First, the GOP "winning" margin was very close to the statistical confidence interval of recent polling results. Second, the parallel South Carolina race was even closer, but with far less money spent than was spent in Georgia. Third, Georgia uses antiquated Diebold voting machines, which are vulnerable to Russian and other voting fraud manipulations.

POLITICAL EVALUATION: With the added technical uncertainty of no voting audit trail, the most effective political evaluation is diminished by doubt.

I know this is an old thread and we all should move on to the new one but, then there is the issue of going off topic!

So, I'll just say that Democrats running for office next year and especially two years after that need to take a fundamental lesson or two from ... wait for it ... President ...er, make that CANDIDATE Trump.

And, that is that they need to speak to the voters in the language voters understand. To be sure, this means that the language and manner of speaking used (not the message, of course, and without the vulgarity) will necessarily vary and should be specifically tailored to the audience and to the issues of most concern to them as well as to geographical area, etc.

To reiterate, I most decidedly do not mean to say that Democrats need to tell people what they want to hear, depending on who they are and where they come from. On the contrary, the Democratic message - should they ever develop one, ahem - should be consistent and be persistently delivered. However, the one thing Donald Trump did successfully as a candidate was speak to the voters in general and to his base in particular in ways that resonated with great clarity and purpose.

Now, the Democrats have a much better message - strike that ... the Dems SHOULD have a much better message and just as soon as they figure out what that message is then all they have to do is figure how to deliver it in a manner that resonates equally effectively with voters regardless of where they are, who they are, or what issues are of most concern to them.

This isn't rocket science or in need of a Philadelphia lawyer to figure it all out. Which is why I can't for the life of me account for how Democrats approach their campaigns.

Your initial comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post your comments and see them instantly.

Just remember not to post more than one link per comment, as multilink comments are automatically held for moderation.

As for a post-mortem, I want a party-wide effort to bridge the still-festering gap between the Bernie folks and the Hillary folks. Fighting within the party isn't helping anything. At the start of the Ossoff race, Sanders was criticized for not immediately endorsing Ossoff. This may not have had much impact on the final vote, but now many are saying Ossoff ran a too-timid campaign (much like they said about Hillary).

The issue's just going to continue to be a roadblock until the party as a whole makes the attempt to address it in some constructive fashion.

Once again, welcome, and sorry you had to wait so long to get your comment approved.

VERACITY: First, the GOP "winning" margin was very close to the statistical confidence interval of recent polling results. Second, the parallel South Carolina race was even closer, but with far less money spent than was spent in Georgia. Third, Georgia uses antiquated Diebold voting machines, which are vulnerable to Russian and other voting fraud manipulations.